I beg to disagree: key owner broadcasts first bundle (let's call it this way)
so that it is on any miner's best interest to include said bundle on their's
attempted coinbase because they know if they don't any other competing miner
will in the next block.
Once more I think it's worth
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 7:44 PM wrote:
>
> I beg to disagree: key owner broadcasts first bundle (let's call it this way)
> so that it is on any miner's best interest to include said bundle on their's
> attempted coinbase because they know if they don't any other competing miner
> will in the
Hey Yuri,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:19 AM Yuri S VB via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> down from 136 from ECC.
Schnorr signature has size 64 bytes (serialized format consists of x
coordinate of R and of s, 32 bytes each).
> The whole point is that, in the typical use case in which pre-image of hash
>
Hi Yuri,
While not exactly the same, the idea of using Lamport chains was analyzed
circa 2012 in the context of cryptocurrencies.
I proposed a new signature scheme called MAVE [1], and then a
cryptocurrency scheme called MAVEPAY [2] to reduce the size of signatures
to a minimum of 3 hash
Hi ArmchairCryptologist,
Bitcoin is working as expected and I don't see any 'manipulation' attacks in
the bidding for block space. Maybe we aren't used to such demand for blockspace
on bitcoin. Additionally, fingerprinting based on fee rates and timing to
attribute transactions to a single
Dear colleagues,
After having mentioned it in a Twitter Space a few moments ago, I felt the need
to share the idea with you even just as a draft. Utilizing Lamport Scheme (not
signature) for better byte-efficiency in L1:
1. Have signing keys consist of the current ECC key AND a Lamport chain;
